Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, the Supreme Court properly determined that she was not entitled to the benefit of the continuous treatment doctrine and any claims arising out of the defendant's conduct that occurred before November 2, 1998, are time-barred (see CPLR 214-a).
The Supreme Court also correctly determined that the evidentiary submissions made on the motion by the defendant established...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.
